Sri.Mudigonda Raju

1 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Prl.JCJ-cum-XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam

Saturday, the 20th day of August, 2022 . No. 46 of 2017C.C

Between: The State of Telangana through Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. …Complainant A N D

Kompally Balraj S/o Chandraiah age 27 years, Occ: Centring Work, R/o H.No. 3-31, Koheda Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No.498 of 2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 20-12-2016 at 12:00 hours,

LW6/Inspector received a complaint from LW1, wherein he stated that on 28.12.2016 at about 9-00 AM, he went to Bharath Hotel for Breakfast by parking his two wheeler passion plus bearing No.AP 29 N 2443 in front of that hotel. After breakfast he came out and observed that his two wheeler was stolen away by some unknown persons. He searched for his vehicle but in vain. Then he lodged complaint with police. Basing on which, LW6 registered a case in Cr.No.498/2016 for the offence under section 379

IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW7 and during course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LWs 2 and 3.

On 29-12-2016, he apprehended the accused and on interrogation, in the presence of 2 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

LWs 4 and 5, he confessed to have committed the offence and accordingly seized stolen motor cycle No. AP 29 N 2443 from his possession under cover of panchanama. Then he remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and framed charges under Sections 379 of IPC, explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P7 were marked and no oral or documentary evidence were marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

3 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

10. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that the motorcycle of the complainant was committed theft and on his complaint, police registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

11.To prove the allegations, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked

Exs.P1 to P7. PW1 is the complainant, Pws.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW4 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of accused and PW5 is the Investigating Officer.

12.During the course of evidence, PW1 deposed that he parked his two wheeler at a hotel, had breakfast and after coming out of that hotel, found missing of his two wheeler, as such he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1. He further deposed that subsequently he took the motorcycle from this court as interim custody. He clearly deposed that some unknown offender committed theft of his motorcycle.

13.PWs 2 and 3, panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were treated as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination.

14.The evidence of PW4, panch witness for confession of accused, shows that on one day about six years ago, the accused confessed that he committed theft of one bike parked in front of a hotel and in pursuance of the same, police seized that bike from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama Ex.P6, but in the cross- examination, he admitted that he is native of Brahmanapalli village, he went to police station on that day along with the complainant. He clearly admitted that when police questioned the accused, he confessed the offence before them in the police station.

Ex.P6 also shows that it was conducted in the police station.

4 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

15.There remains the evidence of PW5, the investigating officer and his evidence is formal in nature that they received the complaint, registered the case, conducted investigation, and filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestions.

16.As per the case of the prosecution, the accused alleged to have stolen away the bike of complainant/PW1 and that bike was seized from the possession of accused in the presence of PW4 and another under Ex.P6 panchanama, in the police station. The learned counsel for the accused contended that recovery of property from the possession of accused in a case of this nature is not admissible in evidence because the alleged confession was in the police station and as admitted by PW4, when the police questioned, the accused alleged to have confessed the offence, which shows that there is every possibility of implicating the accused in the case and saying so he relied on a decision reported in Jaffer Hussein Dastgir vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1970 SC 1934], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“5. Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act no confession made by an accused to a police officer can be admitted in evidence against him. An exception to this is however provided by Section 26 which makes a confessional statement made before a Magistrate admissible in evidence against an accused notwithstanding the fact that he was in the custody of the police when he made the incriminating statement. Section 27 is a proviso to Section 26 and makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of a fact deposed to by him and connected with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it is confessional or otherwise. The essential ingredient of the section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. The embargo on statements of the accused before the police will not apply if all the above conditions are fulfilled. If an accused charged with a theft of articles or receiving stolen articles, within the meaning of Section 411 I.P.C. states to the police, 'I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them' and the articles are actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by him led to the discovery of a fact i.e. keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. The discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. In principle there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the appellant in this case which in effect is that 'I will show you the person to whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for 'the place' where the article is kept. In neither case are the articles or the diamonds the fact discovered.”.

5 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

17.The learned counsel for accused also relied on a decision reported in State of

U.P. vs. Deoman Upadhyaya [AIR 1960 SC 1125], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India held that “there is denial of equal protection of the law, because if the statement were made before custody began, it would be inadmissible. of course, the making of the statement as also the stage at which it is made, depends upon the person making it. The law is concerned in seeing fairplay and this is achieved by insisting that an unguarded statement should not be receivable. The need for caution is there, and this caution is very forcefully brought home to an accused, when he is accused of an offence and is in the custody of the police. There is thus a classification which is reasonable as well as intelligible, and it subserves a purpose recognised now for over two centuries. When such an old and time-worn rule is challenged by modern notions, the basis of the rule must be found. When this is done, as I have attempted to do, there is no doubt left that the rule is for advancement of justice with protection both to a suspect not yet arrested and to an accused in custody. There is ample protection to an accused, because only that portion of the statement is made admissible against him which has resulted in the discovery of a material fact otherwise unknown to the police. I do not, therefore, regard this as evidence of unequal treatment.”

18.Admittedly, the alleged confession was made by the accused in the police station. As admitted by PW4, when police questioned, the accused confessed the offence. But Ex.P6 shows that when the accused was taking away the stolen bike, police stopped him and when qestioned about the documents, he did not furnish correct particulars as such took him to the police station. Hence, it is clear that the alleged confession does not show the discovery of material fact in the course of alleged confession. Therefore, in the light of the above cited principles of law and in view of uncorroborated evidence of Pws 4 and 5 with that of Ex.P6, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged recovery of property from the possession of accused as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused. Therefore, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

6 of 7C.C.No.46 of 2017

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The interim custody of MO.1 given to its owner shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

Appendix of evidence: Witnesses examined for For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : S.Venkat Reddy- Nil - PW2 : Md.Abdul Rahaman PW3 : B.Santhosh PW4 : U.Malla Reddy PW5 : K.Linga Swamy Exhibits marked: For Prosecution:For Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint - Nil - Ex.P2 : Signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 : Signature of PW2 on rough sketch Ex.P4 : Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 : Signature of PW3 on rough sketch Ex.P6 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P7 : FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- M.O.1 is Passion plus bike bearing No.AP 29 N 2443

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

CORRECTED

1 of 5C.C.No.539 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Prl.JCJ-cum-XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam

Saturday, the 20th day of August, 2022 . No. 539 of 2016C.C Between: The State of Telangana through Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. …Complainant A N D

Anumandla Ravi S/o Rajaiah, age 38 years, Occ: Vegetable business, R/o H.No.5-9, Pragathi Nagar Colony, Ibrahimpatnam village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri. B.Madanna, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No. 361 of 2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 11-09-2016 at 12.30hrs,

Lw10/Inspector of police received a complaint from LW1 stating that on 11.09.2016 at 10.00 hours, while she was doing bath in bathroom in her house, at that time, an unknown person climbed wall and tried to rob her gold chain and on her shouts, he escaped from there, as such she requested to take necessary action. Basing on which LW10 registered a case in Cr.No.361/2016 for the offence U/S 393 of IPC and entrusted investigation to LW11/PW7, who, during the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at PS, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6 and 7 and also examined and recorded the statements of

Lw2 to 5. On 12-09-2016 at 09.30 hrs, he along with his staff apprehended 2 of 5C.C.No.539 of 2016 the accused person and on interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed this offence, in the presence of LW8 and 9 and thereafter he effected his arrest and produced before the court for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and framed charge under Section 393 of IPC, explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked and no oral or documentary evidence were marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 393 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT : It is the case of the prosecution that the accused attempted to commit robbery and on the complaint of LW1/PW1, police registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3 of 5C.C.No.539 of 2016

11.To prove the allegations, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. PW1 is the complainant, PWs 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses, PW5 is the circumstantial witness, PW4 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW6 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of accused and PW7 is the Investigating Officer.

12.During the course of evidence, PW1 deposed that on one day about 5 years ago, while she was bathing in the bathroom, one person entered into it and tried to snatch her gold pustelatadu from her neck on her backside and then she screamed, on hearing the same, that person fled away by jumping the wall.

She clearly deposed that the accused is the same person, who tried to snatch her gold chain. She further deposed that on hearing her screaming, her husband and others rushed there and then she lodged Ex.P1 complaint. In the cross- examination, she admitted that she stated in the complaint that she can identify the accused if shown to her, that she has no prior acquaintance with the accused, that on the same day she was examined by police. But in Ex.P1 she has not mentioned about the factum that on hearing her screaming, her husband and others rushed there, as deposed in her chief examination and that she can identify the accused if shown to her, as admitted by her in her cross- examination. She clearly stated in Ex.P1 complaint that the accused is unknown person and in the cross-examination also she admitted that she has no prior acquaintance with the accused. When the accused is unknown person or having no prior acquaintance, her identification of accused before this court cannot be believed and the same is doubtful.

13.The witnesses Pws.2, 3, and 5 did not depose anything against the accused and they did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were treated as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination.

4 of 5C.C.No.539 of 2016

14.The evidence of PW4, panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, shows that police conducted that panchanama in their presence and in the cross- examination he admitted that he does not remember the house, where that panchanama was conducted.

15.PW6, the panch witness for confession of accused, did not support the case of the prosecution as such he was treated as hostile and nothing was elicited in his cross-examination.

16.There remains the evidence of PW7, the investigation officer, which is formal in nature and it shows that they received complaint, registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. During the course of his evidence, he got marked Ex.P8 to P10 documents, but since the witnesses Pws.1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution.

17.As stated supra, the evidence of PW1 with that of her complaint Ex.P1 is not corroborating as it appears that she improved her version before this court and that improved version against an unknown person/accused cannot be relied upon. The evidence of PW7 does not show that he got conducted any test identification proceedings against the accused to identify him by the victim during the course of investigation, as contended by the learned counsel for the accused and PW7 also has also not taken any steps to link up the accused with the alleged offence. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the accused, since there is no recovery, the alleged confession of accused has no validity in the eye of law. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel

for the accused, except the improved version of PW1 in identifying the accused

before this court and the evidence of PW7, there is no other evidence to prove

the alleged offence against the accused. Therefore, this court is of the view that the above evidence of Pws 1, 4 and 7 is not sufficient to prove the allegations 5 of 5C.C.No.539 of 2016 against the accused and, hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 393 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

Appendix of evidence: Witnesses examined for For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : Ch.Aruna- Nil - PW2 : B.Narsamma PW3 : Syed Anwar PW4 : M.Aravind PW5 : G.Sudhakar PW6 : E.Chandrashekar Reddy @ Shekar Reddy PW7 : G.Nagaraju Exhibits marked: For Prosecution:For Defence Ex.P1 : Complaint-Nil- Ex.P2 : Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3 : Statement of PW3 Ex.P4/P9 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5/P10 : Rough sketch Ex.P6 : Statement of PW5 Ex.P7 : Signature of PW6 on confession panchanama Ex.P8 : FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- - Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

CORRECTED

1 of 5C.C.No.01 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Prl.JCJ-cum-XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam

Saturday, the 20th day of August, 2022 . No. 01 of 2021C.C Between: The State of Telangana through Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. …Complainant A N D

Maroju Raju S/o Narsimha Chary, age 30 years, Occ: Police Constable, R/o H.No.2-15, Yacharam village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of Telangana.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri. P.Dhananjaiah, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No. 26 of 2020 for the offence punishable under

Section 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2020 at 11.00 hours, the complainant lodged a report stating that about 3 years back Maroju Raju who is working as Police Constable in Ibrahimpatnam Police Station introduced to her at her village Uppariguda during his visit in Ibrahimpatnam interceptor vehicle and got acquittance with her through her brother namely Amarender and frequently used to talk with her over phone by developing friendship with her.

On 01.12.2019 her parents performed her marriage with Nerrepally Villager

Krishna and after marriage also Maroju Raju regularly called to her number 8106052502 from his number 7901118175 and forced her to talk with him, then she requested him not to call her as she got married with Krishna, but he 2 of 5C.C.No.01 of 2021 threatened her to talk with him and insulted her modesty as such she requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, LW10 registered a case in Cr.No.26/2020 for the offence under Section 354-D and 506 of IPC, and entrusted investigation to LW11. During the course of investigation,

Lw11 got recorded the statement of LW1 with LW9, thereafter he examined and recorded the statement of LW2 to LW4. On 28-01-2020, LW11 apprehended the

Accused wherein admitted his guilt pertaining to this case and also pertaining to other cases registered in Cr.No.370/2019 U/s 435 IPC and Cr.No. 23/2021 U/s 440 of IPC in the presence of LW5 and 6 and one Pulsar Vehicle Bearing No.

AP29BS4002 and one cell phone (MI) were seized from his possession under cover of panchanama thereafter he affected the arrest of accused and produced

before the court for Judicial Remand and also deposited the case property

before the court. Thereafter LW11 addressed a letter to Lw7 and 4 for want of

CDR and CAF Particulars of accused as well as complainant mobile phones. On transfer of LW11, LW12 I tookup further investigation and collected CDR and

CAF from LW7 and 8 and on verification of CDR it is found that 7901118175 was allotted to accused for official duties. On verification of CDR, it is noticed that there is regular phone calls between LW1 and accused which is shown in compact disc. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 354-

D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3 of 5C.C.No.01 of 2021

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and framed charge under Section 354-D and 506 of IPC, explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P11 were marked and no oral or documentary evidence were marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 354-D and 506 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT : It is the case of the prosecution that the accused outraged the modesty of victim/LW1, threatened her with dire consequences and on her complaint, police registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

11.To prove the allegations the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked

Exs.P1 to P11. PW1 and PW2 are the circumstanctial witnesses, PW3 is the complainant and PW4 is the Investigating Officer.

12.During the course of evidence, PW1 to 3 did not depose anything against the accused and they did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were treated as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination.

4 of 5C.C.No.01 of 2021

13.The evidence of PW4, the investigation officer, shows that they received complaint, registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. During the course of his evidence, he got marked Ex.P4 to

P11 documents, but since the victim/Pw3 herself did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW4 does not have much weight and in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of investigating officer/PW4 cannot be relied upon, in the light of the provisions of

Evidence Act. Hence, in the absence of victim supporting evidence, this court is of the view that the above evidence of PW4 is not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused and, hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences, beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly the point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354-D and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case property, under Ex.P8 shall be returned to its owner/accused, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

Appendix of evidence: Witnesses examined for For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : Sri Goddala Krishna- Nil - PW2 : Smt. Goddala Yellamma PW3 : Smt. Goddala Niranjani PW4 : CH.Rama Swamy Exhibits marked: For Prosecution:For Defence Ex.P1 : Statement of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 on complaint 5 of 5C.C.No.01 of 2021

Ex.P4 : Complaint. Ex.P5 : FIR. Ex.P6 : Confession Panchanama. Ex.P7 : CD. Ex.P8 : Form 60. Ex.P9 : CDR of accused issued by Airtel. Ex.P10 : CDR of Complainant. Ex.P11 : CDR issued by BSNL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- - Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

CORRECTED

1 of 5C.C.No.107 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XXV

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Prl.JCJ-cum-XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam

Tuesday, the 10th day of May, 2022 . No. 107 of 2018C.C

Between: The State of Telangana through, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Ibrahimpatnam Excise Station. …Complainant. A N D

Thalla Darshan Goud, S/o. Anjaiah Goud, aged 490 years, R/o. H.No.2-74, Cherlapatelguda.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri P.Ramulu, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Ibrahimpatnam Excise Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 277/2014-15 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997.

2.The facts of the prosecution case are that on 02-09-2014, on reliable information about illegal sale of illicit distilled liquor at H.No.2-74,

Cherlapaterlguda, LW3/P & EI, Enforcement, R.R.Zone along with G.Narsingh

Rao/ASI and other staff proceeded to Ibrahimpatnam village and secured the panchas LWs 1 and 2 then proceeded to suspected house of Cherlapatelguda village. At that time they found one person sitting in front of the house, on enquiry he revealed his name as Tharla Darshan Goud, S/o. Anjaiah Goud. On 2 of 5C.C.No.107 of 2018 search of the house they found two bottles each bottle containing 2 liters of illicitly distilled liquor total 4 liters. Upon, which LW4/G.Narsingh Rao, P &

ESI Enforcement, R.R.Zone, drawn two samples, each about 350 ml., seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of confession panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and 2. The samples and seized property along with accused were brought to the station and handed over to SHO Excise,

Ibrahimpatnam. On 02-09-2014, LW5/Hanma Naik, P & ESI, Ibrahimpatnam

Station received panchanama along with accused and case property from LW3/

M.Linga Chary, P & EI Enforcement, R.R.Zone. Basing on it he registered a case in crime no.277/2014-15, for the offences punishable under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and submitted case papers along with one sample to this Court and also produced the accused for judicial remand. One sample is sent for chemical examination and the remaining seized property was deposited before Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ranga Reddy

District for confiscation. Subsequently, LW5/D.Hanma Naik, P&ESI,

Ibrahimpatnam received the chemical examination report No.5992/2014/2, dated 15-10-2014 wherein they opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On transfer of LW5/ P&ESI,

Ibrahimpatnam, LW6/G.Lingam, P&ESI, Ibrahimpatnam took the case papers and found it in correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3 of 5C.C.No.107 of 2018

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and framed charge under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of T.S.

Prohibition Act, explained to him in his own language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5. No oral or documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offense under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that accused was in possession of illicit distilled liquor and the excise officials in the presence of panchas seized the same under cover of panchanama and later filed charge sheet against the accused.

11.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked

Ex.P1 to P5. PW1 is the panch witness and PWs 2 and 3 are the investigating 4 of 5C.C.No.107 of 2018 officers. Police filed memo that whereabouts of LW2/Panch witness is not traced out as such the evidence of LW2 is closed.

12.During the course of evidence, PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution, as such he was treated as hostile, and nothing was elicited in his cross-examination in favour of prosecution.

13.There remains the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the investigating officers and thier evidence is formal in nature. Except the testimonies of the investigating officers/PWs 2 and 3, there is no other independent corroborative evidence to prove the offence against the accused. In the absence of supporting evidence of panch witnesses, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged seizure from the alleged place of offence. Though the prosecution could establish that the sample is illicit distilled liquor as per Ex.P4, it failed to establish that the same was seized from the possession of the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

5 of 5C.C.No.107 of 2018

Appendix of evidence: Witnesses examined for

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 Kotha Venkatesh/Panch Witness -NIL- PW2 M.Linga Chary/Investigating Officer PW3 G.Lingam/Investigating Officer

Exhibits marked: For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the confession panchanama Ex.P3 is the COR Ex.P4 is the laboratory analysis report Ex.P5 is the letter dated 02-09-2014 addressed to DCP.

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- - Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

CORRECTED

1 of 4C.C.No.03 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-XV ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M. Raju, Prl.JCJ-cum-XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam

Saturday, the 20th day of August, 2022 . No. 03 of 2021C.C Between: The State of Telangana through Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. …Complainant A N D

Maroju Raju S/o Narsimha Chary, age 30 years, Occ: Police Constable, R/o H.No.2-15, Yacharam village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of Telangana.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri. P.Dhananjaiah, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station

Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No. 370 of 2019 for the offence punishable under

Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 04­12­2019 at 07.30 hrs,

LW12/Inspector received a complaint from LW1, wherein he stated that on 03.12.2019, himself and his family members went to Uppariguda village on the occasion of marriage of his son Krishnaiah in Bolero vehicle No.TS­07­UG­3881 and at about 23.45 hours, they returned to home and parked their bolero vehicle in front of house and slept in the house by locking the doors and windows and on 04.12.2019 at about 00.25 hours, they heard big sound, due to which they came out and noticed that some unknown person set fire to their bolero vehicle by breaking its backside glass, as such requested to take necessary action. Basing on which, LW12 registered a case in

Cr.No.370/2019 for the offence U/s 435 of IPC and entrusted investigation to LW13.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to LW7 and visited the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the 2 of 4C.C.No.03 of 2021 presence of LW8 and 9. On 28­01­2020, LW13 apprehended the Accused wherein admitted his guilt pertaining to this case and also pertaining to other cases registered in Cr.No.26/2020 U/s 354­D and 506 IPC and Cr.No. 23/2020 U/s 440 of IPC in the presence of LW10 and 11 and one Pulsar Vehicle Bearing No. AP29BS4002 and one cell phone (MI) were seized from his possession under cover of panchanama, thereafter he effected the arrest of accused and produced before the court for Judicial

Remand. On transfer of LW13, LW14/PW5 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW13, found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, and framed charge under Section 435 of IPC, explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked and no oral or documentary evidence were marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3 of 4C.C.No.03 of 2021

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution established the guilt against the accused for the offence under Section 435 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT : It is the case of the prosecution that the accused intentionally set fire to the vehicle of complainant and on the complaint of LW1/PW1, police registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

11.To prove the allegations the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked

Exs.P1 to P10. PW3 is complainant, PWs 1 and 2 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW4 is the eye witness and PW5 is the Investigating Officer.

12.During the course of evidence, PW1 to 4 did not depose anything against the accused and they did not support the case of the prosecution, as such they were treated as hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination.

13.The evidence of PW5, the investigation officer, shows that they received complaint, registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. During the course of his evidence, he got marked Ex.P6 to

P10 documents, but since the witnesses Pws.1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW5 does not have much weight and in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of investigating officer/PW5 cannot be relied upon, in the light of the provisions of

Evidence Act. Hence, in the absence of supporting evidence, this court is of the view that the above evidence of PW5 is not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused and, hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 435 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

4 of 4C.C.No.03 of 2021

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

Appendix of evidence: Witnesses examined for For Prosecution:For Defence: PW1 : Sri Goddala Krishna- Nil - PW2 : Smt. Goddala Yellamma PW3 : Smt. Goddala Rangaiah PW4 : Shamatla Sanjeeva PW5 : CH.Rama Swamy Exhibits marked: For Prosecution:For Defence Ex.P1 : Statement of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2 : Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3 : Signature of PW3 on complaint Ex.P4 : Statement of PW3. Ex.P5 : Statement of PW4 Ex.P6 : Complaint Ex.P7 : FIR Ex.P8 : Scene of offence Panchanama. Ex.P9 : Rough sketch. Ex.P10 : Attested copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS:- - Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam.

CORRECTED